2. 판단 이 사건 각 범행의 태양 및 수법 등에 비추어 그 죄질이 나쁠 뿐만 아니라 최근의 공권력 경시 풍조를 고려할 때 엄히 처벌할 필요가 있는 점, 피해 경찰관과 합의하지 못한 점 등은 인정된다.

However, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed each of the instant offenses in depth; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed each of the instant offenses in contingency; (c) the damaged patrol car repair expenses; and (d) deposited KRW 1 million for the damaged police officers; (c) the degree of injury is not heavy; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant offenses; and (e) all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the offense, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 70 of the Criminal Act). However, since it is apparent that the application of the law in the judgment of the court below was omitted by this mistake after the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” after the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” of the detention in the workhouse, it is corrected to add it ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1)